Global Courant
WASHINGTON –
In a defeat for gay rights, the High CouncilThe party’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. . One of the court’s liberal justices wrote in a dissenting opinion that the effect of the decision is to “mark gays and lesbians for second-class status” and that it opens the door to other forms of discrimination.
The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, despite a Colorado law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith had argued that the law violates her freedom of speech.
Smith’s opponents warned that a win for her would allow a range of companies to discriminate against and refuse to serve black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants. But Smith and her supporters had said a ruling against her artists – from painters and photographers to writers and musicians – would force them to do work that is against their beliefs.
Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices that the First Amendment “presents the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they please, not as the government demands.” Gorsuch said the court has long held that “the ability to think for ourselves and freely express those thoughts is one of our most cherished freedoms and part of what keeps our Republic strong.”
“Discord is not discrimination, and the government cannot mislabel speech as discrimination in order to censor it,” she said in a statement.
Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices that the First Amendment “presents the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they please, not as the government demands.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by the court’s other liberals. “Today, for the first time in its history, the Court grants a company open to the public the constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.
The decision is a victory for religious rights and one of a series of cases in recent years in which the judges have sided with religious plaintiffs. For example, last year the court ruled along ideological lines for a football coach who prayed on the field of his public high school after games.
The decision is also a retreat on gay rights in court. For two decades, the court expanded the rights of LGBTQ people, most notably granting same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and announcing five years later that a groundbreaking civil rights law would also protect gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination at work. That decision on the civil rights bill was also written by Gorsuch.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “Today, for the first time in its history, the Court grants a corporation open to the public the constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” She was joined by the court’s two other liberals, Judge Elena Kagan and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sotomayor said the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity”. A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationery store could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.
The decision is a victory for religious rights and one of a series of cases in recent years in which the judges have sided with religious plaintiffs. For example, last year the court ruled along ideological lines for a football coach who prayed on the field of his public high school after games.
The decision is also a retreat on gay rights in court. For nearly three decades, the court has expanded the rights of LGBTQ people, most notably granting same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and announcing five years later in a decision written by Gorsuch that a groundbreaking civil rights law would also protects gays, lesbians and transgender people against employment discrimination.
While it expanded gay rights, the court has been careful to say that people of different religious beliefs should be respected. The belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman is an idea that “has long been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and around the world,” Justice Anthony wrote. Kennedy. court ruling on same-sex marriage.
The court revisited that idea five years ago when faced with the case of a Christian baker who objected to designing a cake for a same-sex wedding. The court issued a limited ruling in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, saying that there had been intolerable hostility to his religious views in the hearing of his case. Phillips’ attorney, Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, also brought the most recent case to court. On Friday, she said the Supreme Court was right when it reaffirmed that the government cannot force people to say things they don’t believe.
“Discord is not discrimination, and the government cannot mislabel speech as discrimination in order to censor it,” she said in a statement.
Smith, who owns a design company in Colorado called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said she wants to, but her Christian faith prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. And that’s where she comes into conflict with state law.
Colorado, like most other states, has a law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against customers. Colorado said that if Smith offers matrimonial websites to the public under the so-called Public Lodging Act, she must provide them to all clients, regardless of their sexual orientation. Entrepreneurs who violate the law can be fined, among other things. Smith argued that applying the law to her violates her First Amendment rights. The state disagreed.
The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476.
